Might Work, Might Not

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have cooked up an interesting scheme to help keep Donald Trump from accumulating the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president on the first ballot. They announced yesterday that Kasich will not campaign in Indiana, which has its primary on May 3. Cruz, on the other hand, will not contest the primary in Oregon on May 17 or that in New Mexico on June 7. The two candidates have encouraged their supporters to follow their lead in reducing competition in the three states. The agreement comes too late to have an effect on the April 26 primaries, and there is no agreement regarding contests in Nebraska, West Virginia, Washington, California, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, or South Dakota.

The theory behind this desperate move is that, with only two active candidates in these races, the non-Trump votes will be concentrated for either Cruz or Kasich, resulting in fewer delegates for Trump. This theory depends on voters (and, I suppose, independent campaign spenders) being as anti-Trump as are Cruz, Kasich, and other Republican Party leaders. Don’t count on it.

Will, for example, a Kasich supporter in Indiana vote for Cruz because Kasich has stepped aside? Were Cruz and Kasich very similar candidates, this might be likely. I think—I am greatly simplifying here—that Kasich is viewed as a center-right candidate and Cruz is viewed as a far-right candidate. Trump, on the other hand, is sui generis. One can easily imagine a Kasich voter viewing Trump as a reasonably second choice. Likewise, a Cruz voter might also see Trump as a viable second choice. One should therefore not assume that all the votes for the candidate stepping aside will go to the other non-Trump candidate. The effect might be to assure that Trump receives a majority of the votes. On the other hand, the candidate agreement may have little effect, as some voters will want to vote for their favored candidate no matter what.

The agreement between Cruz and Kasich may have the desired effect, but I doubt it.

Under God, In God We Trust

Some time ago, I published here an essay about the motto of the United States, “In God we trust,” and what many have assumed to be the motto of the nation, “E pluribus unum.” Because I had earlier written on my Web site about the addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought my essay on the national motto should also be on my Web site.

A revised (and somewhat updated) version of “A Matter of Mottos” can now be found on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago here. My essay “The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited,” which is something of a companion piece, can be found here.

As you may have guessed, I think that “God” belongs neither on our currency nor in public schoolrooms at the start of the day. I’m sure that some readers will immediately agree with me. No doubt, others are already fighting mad. For those in the latter category, read the essays and see if your mind isn’t changed.

Update, 4/28/2016. Religion News Service ran a story January 19, 2016, about Michael Newdow who has tried through the courts to remove “God” from the Pledge and from our currency. Having failed using a First Amendment establishment clause argument, he has switched to citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the misguided legislation that carried the day in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. No one seems to take Newdow seriously.

Taste Test

I don’t often buy sweetened soft drinks. I consume a fair amount of flavored and (more often) unflavored seltzer, however. I occasionally bring home tonic, which I drink straight and or with gin. In the rare instances when I do buy a sweetened drink, I usually buy the no-calory variety.

For some reason, I brought home both Schweppes Tonic Water and Schweppes Diet Tonic Water the other day. Today, I compared the taste of the two tonics. Being neither ConsumerReports nor America’s Test Kitchen, my procedure was rather unscientific. I did not do any sort of blind testing; I merely tasted the two products in succession from two shot glasses. I did two rounds of tasting.

I was surprised at the result of my taste test. Bottom line: (1) The drinks taste different; (2) The naturally sweetened version tasted very much better.

Most of the ingredients of the two drinks are the same, but, whereas the standard tonic contains high fructose corn syrup, the diet variety contains sodium saccharin and sodium citrate. The differences are responsible for the fact that the plain tonic has more calories (130/12 oz vs. 0/12 oz.) but less sodium (55 mg./12 oz. vs. 105 mg./12 oz.).

Arbitrarily, I tasted the diet tonic first. It was bitter, of course, which one expects from quinine. The regular tonic was also bitter, but it lacked an unpleasant edge present in the diet version. Instead, it had a smoother, fuller taste. I don’t know that I can say much more than that, but I quickly resolved never to buy Schweppes Diet Tonic Water again.

Now, I need to look into Canada Dry offerings.

Thoughts about Presiding Bishop Michael Curry’s Investigation Update

As Episcopalians who follow church news closely are well aware—see ENS story here—Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, shortly after he was officially installed in his current position and while recovering from a head injury, put three members of the church top management team on administrative leave, pending investigation of undisclosed charges.

Two days ago, a press release detailed the actions taken as a result of that investigation. Mr. Sam McDonald, Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Director of Mission, and Mr. Alex Baumgarten, Director of Public Engagement and Mission Communications, “were found to have violated established workplace policies and to have failed to live up to the Church’s standards of personal conduct in their relationships with employees, which contributed to a workplace environment often inconsistent with the values and expectations of The Episcopal Church.” They have been fired.

Curry explained that Bishop Stacy Sauls, Chief Operating Officer of the DFMS, “did not violate workplace policy, was unaware of the policy violations of the two staff members reporting to him, and operated within the scope of his office.” He is, however, being removed as Chief Operating Officer.

The aforementioned press release said nothing more about the nature of the policy violations, the period during which they were committed, or the circumstances that allowed them to occur. Although Bishop Curry has explained actions being taken in response to those violations, there is no suggestion that additional information or an explanation for the lack of information will be forthcoming.

I have been surprised that the reaction to the limited disclosure provided by the church has largely been taken at face value on social media. People have expressed relief that the problems, whatever they may have been, have been appropriately handled. In general, people have shown little inclination to demand additional information.

My reaction has been different. Dissatisfaction with the professional staff of the Episcopal Church Center is widespread, and conflicts between that staff and the church’s Executive Council are endemic. That financial improprieties have occurred in church administration in the not-so-distant past does not inspire great confidence. Nor do various past personnel decisions. Recent attempts to polish the reputation of the staff at 815 Second Avenue have seemed more superficial than substantial.

I believe that greater transparency is needed here. Episcopalians, who are paying for church administration, deserve more than a “don’t trouble your little heads about this; daddy is taking care of it.” I appreciate that, as a personnel matter, there may be substantial restrictions on what can be said publicly. On the other hand, people might feel differently about, say, stealing paper clips, than they would about staff members being pressured for sex. Since complaints were apparently made by multiple staff members, who are now being offered counseling, one is inclined to suspect that the offenses were closer to the latter than the former.

We don’t need to know all the gory details of what happened, but at least a hint of the nature of the problem would be helpful. Why did this happen? Is it likely to happen again? Are there structural changes that might need to be made and that might require action by the General Convention? What role did Executive Council play in this affair? Did Council members know anything? If not, why not?

This, of course, raises questions also about Bishop Jefferts Shori and Bishop Sauls. Given that Bishop Sauls is being removed from his position suggests that he should have known what was going on. Should the former Presiding Bishop have known? I don’t know. One suspects that Sauls was either not paying attention or was willfully ignorant of ongoing problems.

I do not want to initiate a witch hunt, but I cannot help feeling that there are systemic problems that may need to be addressed through dramatic changes. Bishop Sauls’ rebranding the church administrative mechanism as the “Missionary Society,” as though it was somehow distinct from and above The Episcopal Church, may have resulted in disconnects on both sides of the relationship. Did the denizens of 815 forget they were serving The Episcopal Church and our Lord Jesus Christ? In any case, what, exactly, does the church expect its professional staff to do? The answer isn’t clear.

Finally, there will be personnel changes coming to the Episcopal Church Center, and there may be organizational changes as well. Without knowing what problem we are solving, how can Episcopalians have confidence in the purported “solution”?

Update, 4/13/2016. Religion News Service has published a story quoting experts arguing for and against further disclosure.

National Poetry Month 2016

National Poetry Month is here again. This year is the 20th such celebration. Read some poetry today. You can read my own poetry on my Web site here. Read other poems here.

Click on image for a larger version.

Thank You, Donald Trump

Yesterday, Donald Trump accomplished what had seemed impossible. He simultaneously pissed off both pro-choice and anti-choice activists. The candidate told Chris Matthews that, should abortion again become illegal, women undergoing abortions should suffer some legal penalty.

It’s easy to understand why the pro-choice community—perhaps I should say the freedom for women community—was appalled by Trump’s remark. It suddenly became clear that Trump not only wanted to restrict women’s freedom; he wanted to punish them as well. If Trump loves women, as he frequently claims, thank God he doesn’t dislike women. Perhaps he would put them all in jail. Who knows?

It is less obvious why abortion opponents were equally appalled by the Republican front-runner. It turns out that that community has consciously avoided suggesting that women having abortions should face punishment. The anti-abortion crowd has demonized abortion providers but has not wanted to tarnish their “pro-life, pro-women” image they have so carefully (and cynically) cultivated.

Well, Trump has given the freedom for women movement a gift. If abortion is murder, as the “pro-lifers” contend, then why would we not punish women if abortion is again outlawed? If a woman hires a hit man to, say, kill her husband, do we not punish the woman as well as the actual murderer? Well, abortion doctors do not go around looking for pregnant women on which to ply their trade. No, desperate, pregnant women seek them out. If abortion is murder, is this not solicitation to murder?

It turns out that the “pro-life” activists are even nastier and more radical than we thought they are. Good to know.

Thank you again, Donald.

P.S. Trump, having been criticized by virtually everyone, of course, quickly retracted his anti-woman remark.

Four Political Limericks

Over the past week, I’ve written limericks about the major presidential candidates—Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. I first posted the limericks on Facebook, which yielded some useful feedback. I have now revised the poems and posted them on my Web site. You can read the final products in “Political Limericks for 2016.”

Why a Democrat Must Select the Next Supreme Court Justice

The importance of filling the currently vacant Supreme Court seat with a justice considerably to the left of the idiosyncratic Antonin Scalia cannot be overestimated. The image below is meant to suggest what is really at stake. Although most Americans will be oblivious of the actual significance of filling the seat once occupied by Justice Scalia, this issue alone is reason enough to vote for the Democrat in November, no batter who it is, and not for the Republican, no matter who that is.

Click on the image for a larger version.

Taking Republican Thinking to Its Logical Conclusion

Republican Senators conveniently have found (i.e., invented out of thin air) the principle that a president should not be granted a Supreme Court nominee in his last year in office. Supposedly, this is so that “the people,” through the upcoming presidential election, will have a say in who is appointed. Of course, “the people” never have a direct voice in Supreme Court nominations, and they have twice elected President Barack Obama. President Obama has exercised his constitutional duty in nominating Judge Merrick Garland.

If one is to take Senate Republicans seriously, putting aside the obvious fact that they simply do not want the balance on the Supreme Court to change and are willing to use any political chicanery they can think of to to postpone it, then the principle should be taken to its logical conclusion.

The Senate of the 114th Congress comprises 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Republicans control the Senate by virtue of their majority. However, the terms of 24 Republicans and 10 Democrats expire next January. They are, in other words, in the final year of their terms. One might just as well argue that the short-term Senators are really in a situation no different from that of President Obama. Shouldn’t these short termers recuse themselves from voting on Supreme Court nominees, letting voters determine who gets to make decisions regarding the Supreme Court? If Senators in their last year of office are recused from voting on Supreme Court nominees—maybe they should refrain from voting on anything at all—we would effectively have a Senate of 30 Republicans, 34 Democrats, and 2 independents, i.e., a Democratic majority.

Of course, all this is silly. Presidents are elected for four years; Senators are elected for six years. Their powers expire on their last day in office and not before.

Let the Senate refuse to deal with the Garland nomination. President Hillary Clinton can then nominate a young, genuine liberal to the court. Then the Republicans will be sorry. Both political and poetic justice will be served.

On the Senate Republicans’ Principle

Click for a larger image.

Why Indeed!

Click on image for a larger view.

Sometimes a Space Makes a Difference

Open compounds often become closed compounds over time. For example, “rail road” long ago became “railroad.” More often than not, whether a term is written as an open or closed compound does not really affect meaning. I, personally, object to “fundraising,” rather than “fund raising,” but I have no trouble understanding text using either rendering.

Not always is meaning preserved when words are run together, and surprising results can emerge when the words in question are not nouns or adjectives. This thought came to mind as I read a story from Huffington Post about LGBT rights in Africa. The article contained this sentence:

As new laws have been signed this year, I could be put in prison for life in Uganda if I were to marry a man, and I could go to prison for 14 years in Nigeria if I were to have a meal with other LGBT people and just talk—my parents could go to jail as well if they didn't turn me into authorities.

What should have been written, of course, is “turn me in to authorities,” not “turn me into authorities,” which sounds like some sort of magic trick.

Thoughts on the Nomination of Merrick Garland

A few minutes ago, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia. As soon as the White House press conference on the lawn was over, Senator Mitch McConnell reiterated his position on the Senate floor that “the American people should have a say” on the next Supreme Court justice. (Of course, the elected the current president twice. Apparently, this doesn’t count.)

I had hoped for the nomination of a young, liberal, Protestant candidate, preferably a woman and preferably an ethnic minority.Frankly, I am disappointed by Mr. Obama’s appointment. On the other hand, a nominee of the sort I had hoped for had  a vanishingly small chance of actually being confirmed.

Judge Garland clearly was chosen because he is an experienced, centrist judge, who has already been confirmed by the Senate for a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Objectively, he is one of the best qualified conceivable candidates for elevation to the high court. He is older than most Democrats expected or hoped for. Judge Garland has but a single problem. He has been nominated by a Democrat when the Senate is controlled by a hateful band of ultra-partisan Republicans.

Does Judge Garland have a chance of being seated on the Supreme Court? Probably not much of one. A groundswell of support from the country might change a few Republican minds in the Senate, but an excellent, though centrist, nominee is not likely to ignite much Democratic passion.

Politically, the nomination of Judge Garland may be quite savvy. If he is not confirmed, as seems likely, and a Democrat wins the presidency, as also seems likely, the next nominee will surely be someone more liberal or even—Republicans would hate this—Barack Obama himself. In other words, although Senate Republicans may not want to confirm—or even consider—Judge Garland, they may be forced to confirm someone much less to their liking.

The best (and even likely) scenario is this: the Senate fails to act on the president’s nomination, Hillary wins the election, the Republicans lose their Senate majority, and President Hillary will be able to nominate and have confirmed whoever she wants on the court.

Fail-Safe Backup Plan

Click on image for a larger version.

A Suggested Tool for Debate Moderators

Back in October, I wrote about ways I thought our political debates could be improved. (See “Suggestions for Presidential Debates.”) Since then, debates among Republican candidates have become increasingly bizarre, crude, and dysfunctional. More than anything, Republican debates have become chaotic. Moderators have lost control of the dialogue, and the candidates have taken to simultaneously tossing angry insults at one another.

One of the ideas I offered last fall to improve debates was

4. Enforce time limits. The time limits for candidate responses to questions are never aggressively enforced. This is particularly irritating when a candidate goes on and on without answering the question asked. … If the rules of the debate allow for one-minute answers, for example, a candidate’s microphone should be cut off by a studio technician after 60 seconds. Presidents, after all, have to be able to use their time wisely, as they get no more of it than the rest of us.

Since I made that suggestion, the problem with debates has become less one of candidates talking too long than one of candidates speaking out-of-turn and talking (or yelling) over others. Such behavior has made the “debates” entertaining—in the same way that mud wrestling is entertaining—and has revealed something of the character of the would-be presidential nominees. It has not revealed much about the philosophy or program priorities of the debate participants, however.

Clearly Mr. Trump and Senators Rubio and Cruz cannot be trusted to conduct polite discourse without additional discipline. Were they a bit more civilized and less inclined to act like kindergarteners, a talking stick and an occasional word from a moderator might engender more enlightening and comprehensible exchanges.

As it is, Republican debates really require aggressively controlled microphones. The moderators should have buttons at their desk, one for each candidate and one for themselves. When a button is pressed, all microphones except that of the indicated speaker should be muted. If a candidate speaks out-of-turn, whatever is said will not be heard over the air. If a moderator needs to cut off a candidate for whatever reason—God only knows what new outrage might present itself—a single button will silence the offending debater and give the moderator the floor.

Would the candidates agree to using such a mechanism? Why give them a choice?

Bill Maher on the Virtues of a Woman President

Bill Maher was in good form on HBO last night. The quote below is from his opening monologue on Real Time with Bill Maher. (Click on the image for a larger view.)

Donald Trump’s Real Message

In a New York Times column, Paul Krugman observed that Donald Trump is implicitly promising to make America “white again.” This inspired the graphic below. Click on the image for a larger view.

 

“Medical Abortions”

Earlier today, I listened to a discussion on the Diane Rehm Show about the Texas Supreme Court case involving restrictions on abortion clinics. I was struck by the distinction made between “surgical abortions” and abortions induced by taking pills, which are generally referred to as “medical abortions.”

Abortions performed by surgical means (e.g, D&C), seem aptly and, even in the rhetorical minefield of women’s health issues, objectively named. It is not clear to me that the term “medical abortions” favors either side in debates over abortion generally. On the other hand, it hardly seems a precise designation. One certainly hopes, for example, that a surgical abortion is indeed a medical procedure—performed by a real doctor in a clinical environment—rather than, say, performed by a woman at home with knitting needles.

We should have a more specific term for abortions effected by the likes of RU-486. I suggest that, rather than “medical abortion,” we should use a term like “medicinal abortion” or “pharmaceutical  abortion.”

I wonder how “medical abortion” became synonymous with abortion-by-pill.

Update, 3/30/2016. The FDA has just changed the label instructions for RU-486 (mifepristone). The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a statement that refers to “medication abortion,” which is surely a more precise term than “medical abortion.”

Make America Sane Again

Click for larger view

Commentary on Encryption

Apparently, surveys have found that only about 50% of Americans believe that Apple is right in refusing to defeat the encryption on one of its iPhones. I, for one, have long believed that no government has a right to read all our communications. Therefore,

You can click on the image for a larger view.